[rescue] Re: Re: OH YEA??? [was: Re: Ultra?]

[Koyote]

> > >   40mhz vs. 270MHz is an important point, but let's also keep in mind
> > > that this is an apples/oranges comparison.  With 1MB of cache, that
> > > 40Mhz can actually do some serious work...while the 256K cache on the
> > > U5's CPU is a joke.

> > [U5]
> > mainbus0 (root): SUNW,Ultra-5_10
> > cpu0 at mainbus0: SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi @ 333 MHz, version 0 FPU
> > cpu0: physical 32K instruction (32 b/l), 16K data (32 b/l), 2048K
> > external (64 b/l)
> > 
> > -vs-
> > 
> > [SS10]
> > mainbus0 (root): SUNW,SPARCstation-10
> > cpu0 at mainbus0: TMS390Z50 v0 or TMS390Z55 @ 50 MHz, on-chip FPU
> > cpu0: physical 20K instruction (64 b/l), 16K data (32 b/l), 1024K
> > external (32 b/l) cache enabled

>   And I suppose next you're going to tell us that ALL Ultra5s come in
> this configuration.  Ultra5s with useful cache are by far the least
> common and most expensive.  To follow your logic, I could say
> something like "since there are SPARCstation-10 systems with 150MHz
> processors, ALL SPARCstation-10 systems have 150MHz processors!"

Okay- correct me if I'm wrong- because I seem to find the "feel" of various workstations to point to a u10/300 being overall a bit snappier than a dual sm81-1 384meg ZX ss20. (yeah, this is a u10 with scsi)

While I see the joys of cache for some types of work, do you need 1meg of cache for 256k of work? does the chache gain you the difference between (depending on the comparison)  32bit at 40mhhz vs 64bit at 270  or, alternatively (and more realistically, IMO) 2x32bit at 85mhz and 64bit at 300mhz?

I'm not knocking cache, and I've got some really nice, stable, long haul performance out of ss20 servers. I'm just curious if that much external cache makes that much difference-

Cheers,
C